This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: GPL violation ?


Though IANAL, I would suggest that the "exchange of something of value" is
the ability to have one's code included in in cygwin as distributed via
setup.  (Thus, the thing of value is a service, not an object.)  One might
reasonably suppose that the contributor wants cygwin to have the
functionality that s/he is contributing.  In this analysis, what one gives
(the code) is commensurate in scope with what gets (the inclusion of the
code).  And even if one is contributing functionality that one will not
oneself use, arguably the psychological rewards and practical benefits of
having code included in the standard release, as opposed to a private build,
to compensate for the transfer of copyright on the code.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Korn
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 1:33 PM
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: RE: GPL violation ?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: 06 May 2004 16:56

> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 07:08:59PM +0100, Vince Hoffman wrote:
> >This comes up on here every now and then and if i didnt 
> think it was a
> >possible issue i wouldnt have brought it up.  Mind you IANAL 

http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#YANALATEYHSMBSI :) lol!

  However, the real point I wanted to mention is that
http://cygwin.com/assign.txt seems almost certain to be invalid under UK
law, and quite possibly under US law too.

  You can't have a contract without an exchange of something of value.
Hence the line about "For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which
I acknowledge".  But *what* consideration?  AFAICS, since nobody's ever been
paid so much as a wooden nickel for their cygwin contributions, every claim
to have been in receipt of such consideration is false, and so every single
one of the supposed contracts is currently in breach and therefore none of
the assignments are valid.

  I'm slightly alarmed to notice this and wonder what the RH legal team have
to say about it?  I think the RH lawyers may need to spend some time sending
people peppercorns through the post, along with a letter apologising for the
late payment!

[  Here are some references for anyone who wants to research this themselves
a bit:

http://www.google.com/search?q=peppercorn+rent+contract+validity&hl=en&lr=&i
e=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sufficiency+of+ex
change+contract+validity+peppercorn

http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/c/consideration.html
An illusory promise, or one which the promisor actually has no obligation to
keep, does not count as consideration. The promise must be real and
unconditional.

http://law.wustl.edu/Organizations/SBA/Outlines/Contracts%20-%20OUTLINEBIG.h
tm
b. Saying there is consideration is not consideration, neither is a seal.
Nominal consideration which means nothing is not consideration.  ]

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]